I haven't watched 60 minutes for over a decade

[boomerang]

They're covering the financial meltdown. It's a real hair-raising story.

Tune in and watch if you want. They're talking in some depth about derivatives.

Looks like the segment is over. Evidently the lame-duck Congress of 2000, on the last vote of their last session overturned a law that had been put on the books following the market crash of 1907. This allowed the derivatives market to flourish to a point that led us to where we are now.

This was the precursor to the meltdown we are experiencing now.

I was watching and surfing at the same time, so I did not catch it all. It was a pretty compelling story. I'm not a student of economics, and cannot comment on the accuracy of the segment. I wish I had paid closer attention to it now.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: boomerang
They're covering the financial meltdown. It's a real hair-raising story.

Tune in and watch if you want. They're talking in some depth about derivatives.

Looks like the segment is over. Evidently the lame-duck Congress of 2000, on the last vote of their last session overturned a law that had been put on the books following the market crash of 1907. This allowed the derivatives market to flourish to a point that led us to where we are now.

This was the precursor to the meltdown we are experiencing now.

I was watching and surfing at the same time, so I did not catch it all. It was a pretty compelling story. I'm not a student of economics, and cannot comment on the accuracy of the segment. I wish I had paid closer attention to it now.

No, it was failure to act when it got out of control.
Your interpretation is specious. Its sort of like blaming the Congress of 1926 or 1919, etc for passing a law that was good at the time, but subsequent events proved it needed changing.

 

[boomerang]

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: boomerang
They're covering the financial meltdown. It's a real hair-raising story.

Tune in and watch if you want. They're talking in some depth about derivatives.

Looks like the segment is over. Evidently the lame-duck Congress of 2000, on the last vote of their last session overturned a law that had been put on the books following the market crash of 1907. This allowed the derivatives market to flourish to a point that led us to where we are now.

This was the precursor to the meltdown we are experiencing now.

I was watching and surfing at the same time, so I did not catch it all. It was a pretty compelling story. I'm not a student of economics, and cannot comment on the accuracy of the segment. I wish I had paid closer attention to it now.

No, it was failure to act when it got out of control.
Your interpretation is specious. Its sort of like blaming the Congress of 1926 or 1919, etc for passing a law that was good at the time, but subsequent events proved it needed changing.

Get this straight. This is not my interpration. This would be the interpretation of the producer of the segment on 60 minutes.

So, it would be a failure of the current Congress to act then. This would be your interpretation?

 

[woodie1]

I saw most of the segment. Seems most of the people they interviewed traced our current financial problems back to a bill passed by Congress in 2000 like you said. Few on this forum will want to hear that. As I understand it, just about all regulation and oversight was removed in that bill and the wheeling-dealing began.

 

[ProfJohn]

It starts and ends with the housing market melt down.

 

[boomerang]

Yeah, that one guy they interviewed, did he say he personally knew people that made millions or was it billions off these derivatives?

It's really pretty disgusting that people made fortunes betting that people would lose their homes. The level of greed and depravity are both outrageous and disgusting. I truly fear for the future of this country.

 

[Lemon law]

It was passed as a midnight hour footnote before the last Clinton congress adjourned. Bill Clinton had two choices, veto the whole bill or let the the stinker pass.

It was still the job of GWB&co to prevent it from getting out of control, they did not, and so it goes. Even Greenspan admits he blew it, while saying its not my fault. Which is another flip flop of the century.

With unregulated derivatives, there is no limit to the amount of money that can be bet. It was an accident waiting to happen, as it is the mortgage crisis was the trigger, but if the true size of the casino was 60-600
trillion, a mere 850 billion bail out is a joke.

For my next trick, I will bet all the diamonds and gold in the nearest galaxy. Plus all the moons and stars. With derivatives, you can cover my bet. I double dog dare you and we are playing for keeps.

 

[boomerang]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
It was passed as a midnight hour footnote before the last Clinton congress adjourned. Bill Clinton had two choices, veto the whole bill or let the the stinker pass.

It was still the job of GWB&co to prevent it from getting out of control, they did not, and so it goes. Even Greenspan admits he blew it, while saying its not my fault. Which is another flip flop of the century.

With unregulated derivatives, there is no limit to the amount of money that can be bet. It was an accident waiting to happen, as it is the mortgage crisis was the trigger, but if the true size of the casino was 60-600
trillion, a mere 850 billion bail out is a joke.

For my next trick, I will bet all the diamonds and gold in the nearest galaxy. Plus all the moons and stars. With derivatives, you can cover my bet. I double dog dare you and we are playing for keeps.

I know I post here rather frequently, but I am really not that political a person. I don't follow all the twists and turns. I suppose I'm declaring my ignorance, but didn't the POTUS have the power of the line item veto at one time? Did this change and if so when? I assumed the President had this power all along, but recently read something that told me otherwise. Your post here about Clinton confirmed that.

This seems like a necessity. Although I will freely admit that I haven't even begun to think it through.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: boomerang

Originally posted by: Lemon law
It was passed as a midnight hour footnote before the last Clinton congress adjourned. Bill Clinton had two choices, veto the whole bill or let the the stinker pass.

It was still the job of GWB&co to prevent it from getting out of control, they did not, and so it goes. Even Greenspan admits he blew it, while saying its not my fault. Which is another flip flop of the century.

With unregulated derivatives, there is no limit to the amount of money that can be bet. It was an accident waiting to happen, as it is the mortgage crisis was the trigger, but if the true size of the casino was 60-600
trillion, a mere 850 billion bail out is a joke.

For my next trick, I will bet all the diamonds and gold in the nearest galaxy. Plus all the moons and stars. With derivatives, you can cover my bet. I double dog dare you and we are playing for keeps.

I know I post here rather frequently, but I am really not that political a person. I don't follow all the twists and turns. I suppose I'm declaring my ignorance, but didn't the POTUS have the power of the line item veto at one time? Did this change and if so when? I assumed the President had this power all along, but recently read something that told me otherwise. Your post here about Clinton confirmed that.

This seems like a necessity. Although I will freely admit that I haven't even begun to think it through.

No, the President did not and does not have the line item veto. Not sure if the President has ever had that power. Places too much power in one mans hands, so it would appear.

 

[bamacre]

The the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act?

 

[DaveSimmons]

It saves thinking to pick a single cause for the subprime meltdown, but there are many persons and companies that helped create it:

Moodys and Standard & Poor's fed the fire
"Frank Raiter says Standard & Poor's placed a "For Sale" sign on its reputation March 20, 2001. That day, a member of an S&P executive committee ordered him, the company's top mortgage official, to grade a real-estate investment he'd never reviewed."

 

[IronWing]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
It starts and ends with the housing market melt down.

If that were true, then the problem would be no where near the mess it is. The mortgage market was the lake. Derivative vapors roiled off the lake allowing the mirage of risk-free leverage to appear.

 

[boomerang]

I've made this statement here several times this year:

How do you legislate against greed?

What I mean by it is, how are we to stay one step ahead of those whose greed is so great that they don't care what the consequences are as long as they make their profit? How do you legislate to create integrity, morals and a sense of what's right and what's wrong?

I understand that the finger can not be pointed at any one person, group of people, business people in one industry etc. But to use one example, how do you prevent people from buying up 2, 3, or 4 homes at a time to flip, and then when the market turns sour they just walk away and let their fellow countrymen pick up the tab?

I don't trust Congress to do the right thing. Their interests don't seem to be aligned with those of the American people. The bail-out bill being the most recent example.

How do you fix a system that is corrupt from the top down? When those that are corrupt are making the rules?

 

[Capt Caveman]

I found the stories afterwards on Boone Pickens and Greg Carr(former boss of mine) to be really good too.

 

[boomerang]

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
I found the stories afterwards on Boone Pickens and Greg Carr(former boss of mine) to be really good too.

I saw the Boone Pickens one. I already stated that I'm not the most political person. I had no idea that he was behind what was done to Kerry.

Having said that, I know he's not the most popular guy for various reasons, but I truly do think that the man has some great ideas. Simple ideas really. But he's got the means to make them happen. Others believe he's in it for his own personal gain but I believe the man when he says that he's got a pretty good lifestyle and doesn't really believe it can be improved on. I think he's one of the few that is really, truly interested in what's good for the country.

Sorry I didn't see the one on your former boss.

 

[brencat]

Originally posted by: boomerang
I've made this statement here several times this year:

How do you legislate against greed?

What I mean by it is, how are we to stay one step ahead of those whose greed is so great that they don't care what the consequences are as long as they make their profit? How do you legislate to create integrity, morals and a sense of what's right and what's wrong?

I understand that the finger can not be pointed at any one person, group of people, business people in one industry etc. But to use one example, how do you prevent people from buying up 2, 3, or 4 homes at a time to flip, and then when the market turns sour they just walk away and let their fellow countrymen pick up the tab?

I don't trust Congress to do the right thing. Their interests don't seem to be aligned with those of the American people. The bail-out bill being the most recent example.

How do you fix a system that is corrupt from the top down? When those that are corrupt are making the rules?

Tough question. Not sure if there's a really good answer. Frankly, in a democracy and truly free capitalist society, I don't believe you can guard against greed. You can only dilute it against the backdrop of mostly decent people.

Besides, greed in many ways is good for the economy and GDP growth. Be thankful there are people out there who want to work 20 out of 24 hours 24/7/365 in pursuit of the almighty dollar. Many of them create jobs and great companies and spend lavishly at clothing stores and car/boat dealers that employ people.

Learning to be decent though starts at home -- with two parents (1 man, 1 woman) willing to teach their kids right from wrong, help with homework, and punish them vigorously when they get out of line. Oh yeah...and they need to stop spoiling kids too. Bring back allowances and daily chores, and turn off the fvcking TV and Playstation during the week when it can interfere with school and homework. Mission accomplished.

 

[babylon5]

Originally posted by: brencat

greed in many ways is good for the economy and GDP

Long time no see, Gordon Gekko!

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: babylon5

Originally posted by: brencat

greed in many ways is good for the economy and GDP

Long time no see, Gordon Gekko!

They have a new Gekko movie coming out.


As far as the derivatives being the underlying cause, it's just not true. While the repeal of that law helped, there were several other things, not really removal of regulations, as the lack of will to regulate troubled areas.

If I were to lay blame, it'd be at the head of the 2004 decision to allow i-banks to lever up (as well as the removal of Glass-Steagall), followed by FAS140/FIN46, the decision to let the rating agencies have a conflicted position, the lack of regulation in the derivatives market, among others.